The list on this page has mainly been used for categories, and both of those links are already connected with Category:Links. What do the rest of y'all think? —[[User:ASDamick|—Fr. Andrewtalkcontribs(THINK!)]] 08:17, 16 Jun 2005 (EDT)

Sounds good. Sorry if I seem a little zealous (careless?). I would think that things like this would be of interest to "seekers" and might warrant a prominent placement. --Joe Rodgers 10:55, 16 Jun 2005 (EDT)

I think there's definitely some merit in the idea. My main concern is that I don't want to promise content by having it prominent and then not deliver, so to speak. Many visitors explore a site once and assume what they see there is all there will ever be. Perhaps the cure for this problem is to develop articles about various Orthodox media so that they can be included in categories. —[[User:ASDamick|—Fr. Andrewtalkcontribs(THINK!)]] 12:19, 16 Jun 2005 (EDT)

Perhaps we should start a series, similar to the Orthodoxy in America, that has to do with an Introduction to Orthodox_Christianity for "seekers" or newcomers. I guess part of my original intent was to address newcomers who come to our home page and are immediately looking for tangible ways to learn more about Orthodoxy. I know that one way I have learned a lot was through online media and publications, although those are external sources from this Wiki. Maybe I should start moving this over to Suggestions --Joe Rodgers 12:46, 28 Jun 2005 (EDT)

That was actually the idea of the Introduction to Orthodox Christianity article, that it would serve as an overview with component articles explaining fundamental concepts and practices. I think it would be great to develop a template for it, as well. —[[User:ASDamick|—Fr. Andrewtalkcontribs(THINK!)]] 13:00, 28 Jun 2005 (EDT)

Contents

TOC

ISTM that having no Table of Contents on the Main Page is a good idea. What do you think? —Fr. Andrewtalkcontribs(THINK!) 17:33, 26 October 2005 (CDT)

I put __NOTOC__ in, but when I tried to check it, it looked like I broke the wiki. I reverted, but that didn't help anything, so I figured it was still in "update" status. In other words, I agree with you. [[User:Magda|—magda (talk)]] 20:51, 26 October 2005 (CDT)

Dissapointment

This wiki seems to have a TON of stuff on church history, yet hardly has anything on the foundations of the faith (Jesus Christ, Trinity). Not only is there very little on the Jesus Christ article, there are no other articles relating to him (resurrection, ascension, life and ministry, etc...). I fear this site is getting too caught up in history, and I hope you can build solid foundations before you become more broad and general. Just my two cents. J23 00:11, 31 October 2005 (CST)

Part of it is, I think, that our current contributors feel less qualified to work on such articles and so they are being approached with much more caution. Feel free to assist in those areas. —Fr. Andrewtalkcontribs(THINK!) 05:48, 31 October 2005 (CST)

Featured Article

If I may ask of the featured article to be changed (it has been a little while), I also proffer suggestions: Afterfeast, Autocephaly, Basil the Great. No vested interest - pretty much anything will do, just to get it cycling again. -- oea 00:06, 3 November 2005 (CST)

Yes, please do so. I don't really have the time right now to continue to maintain this as I have. I've been hoping that others would join in. —Fr. Andrewtalkcontribs(THINK!) 15:03, 3 November 2005 (CST)

"Strictly speaking, Byzantine Chant is the sacred chant of Christian Churches following the Orthodox rite."
I am sorry, but I can't accept this at all, as it is a big historical error.
We may only say "following actually the Eastern Orthodox rite".
Gallican, Syriac and so on existed before the raise of a particular Byzantine sacred chant. 300 years before Constantinople, the Church was already Orthodox.
If someone do not agree, this would mean he thinks saint Paul or saint Irenaeus of Lyon were heterodox..
-- StMaterne

Interestingly, what we now know as Byzantine chant essentially came out of the Syriac church. The vast majority of what now makes up the hymnography and music of the Orthodox Church came from the ascetic life in Syria.

Anyway, if you disagree with the article, perhaps you could address your concerns on its talk page? —Fr. Andrewtalkcontribs(THINK!) 15:36, March 17, 2006 (CST)

Please...

St. Sava commemoration

This is Alexi. May I ask you to mention on today's feasts that 27 january in Serbia and Montenegro, and wherevr Serbs live, is St. Sava's Day, one of the most important church holidays for Serbs! Alexi

Does that work for everyone? —magda (talk) 08:53, January 27, 2006 (CST)

Well, our calendar system for fixed feasts is necessarily New Calendar, since I don't think the wiki can automatically support a -13 on its day calculation. (St. Sava's day is the 14th of January.) —Fr. Andrewtalkcontribs(THINK!) 12:56, January 27, 2006 (CST)

Mainstream Chalcedonian Bias

May I open a discussion on the appropriateness or otherwise of insisting on Mainstream Chalcedonian Bias (MCB) at all times on OrthodoxWiki (OW).

To my mind this often takes OW out of step with current attitudes and trends within the Mainstream Orthodox Churches (MOC) themselves.

One example is OW's rejection of my use of Pre-Chalcedonian to describe those Orthodox Churches which had difficulty accepting the decisions of Chalcedon being enforced on them by Imperial troops. Mainstream Orthodox Churches are using the term Pre-Chalcedonian in preference to Non-Chalcedonian (the term currently used on OW). Pre-Chalcedonian is a neutral non-offensive term for those who did not agree to the emperor's dictat.

For instance, in April 2006 Moscow decided to formally visit the Chalcedonian Christological problem in great depth, and set up a Select Committee to investigate current notions[1]. The Holy Synod of Moscow also uses the term Pre-Chalcedonian in preference to the emotive and biased term Non-Chalcedonian.

chrisg 2006-05-29-1440 EAST

Hi chrisg - Sure, you can open the discussion! Do you have any other examples of how MCB is out of step with the MOC? I think a discussion on the nuances and history of the two terms, if worded properly, would be an excellent addition to one of the articles dealing with these questions. For my part, I don't see non-Chalcedonian as derogatory at all, or very emotive. My understanding is that this term is used instead of the more polemical "monophysite" or even "so-called monophysite." I haven't been exposed to the term pre-Chalcedonian before. I don't think I'd prefer it, since I don't think it's possible to roll back the clock -- in this way it seems dishonest. On the other hand, I like the idea that the "Oriental Orthodox" churches haven't so much directly rejected Chalecedonian Christology, but were cut off from full participation by Imperial powers. — FrJohn (talk)

The recent French articles by mainstream Orthodox I have read in hardback, use the term Pre-Chalcedonian (in French).

The hierarchs and priests of the Pre-Chalcedonian Churches in Australia, all object to the term Non-Chalcedonian. Eastern Hierarchs chose to always use Pre-Chalcedonian because it is not loaded. I don't think the Pre-Chalcedonians are trying to roll back the clock. And the Chalcedonians in Australia who do talk with them, do not see them as trying to do that either. Their theology is fully Orthodox if measured in pre-Chalcedonian terms. To call them monophysite is not polemical, it is just plain wrong, since they themselves condemn any denial of the union of two in the one hypostases.

Monophysite is a Greek term. It was wrong in the first place to try to impose a Greek term on Coptic speakers, and Syriac speakers, without fully explaining the nuances of all related terms, and hearing the nuances of the related Coptic and Syriac terms.

Until we have a balanced understanding of all sides of the discussion, we cannot have a full understanding of this aspect of Christology. If we go into the discussion insisting our philhellenic viewpoint is right, then we perpetuate the impossibility of full understanding.

Saying a decision is correct because it was made by majority vote, is fraught with great danger, especially when it comes to doctrine. With doctrine, decisions should be by consensus of the whole Church. If consensus cannot be reached, then the time for that definition is not right.

That was the great tragedy of the councils. The emperors insisted on doctrinal unity. Constantine did not really care which way the decision went, he just wanted doctrinal unity, so people would stop fighting about it. Of course, the result was worse. Each time a council forced a decision, institutional division resulted. Islam succeeded against Christianity because the Eastern Roman Empire resorted to force of arms against its own people to force obedience to conciliar decrees on Christian doctrine. Egypt was estranged. Syria was estranged. Islam succeeded against these Christian provinces, because they were internally weakened by imperial forcing of doctrinal "unity".

The sooner we get out of our castles and meet out in the open, the sooner we can put this warlikeness behind us, and get on with the first and the second great commands. Many think Christ's commands are more important than perpetuating divisions arising from imperial motivation.

We must look for and see the other viewpoints, and try to be less offensive, whether knowingly or unknowingly.

chrisg 2006-05-29-1621 EAST

Dear Chris G.,

I've read repeatedly the term "Eastern non-Filioquist Tradition" in many places, and being offended or thinking that the guys who wrote it tried to offend me never even crossed my mind ... should it have? The language barrier is not, in my own dis-honest opinion :-) , a valid one -- should we accept the Filioque because the poor-little-Latins didn't have different terms for the temporary-versus-eternal movement of the Holy Ghost, but used the Latin "processio" for the both of them? (Who knows, maybe they weren't ready ... maybe the Church wasn't ready ... maybe God was caught off-guard ...) FOR EXAMPLE, Georgia was cut historically and geo-politically for 1,000 years from the rest of Orthodoxy ... and yet, 1.000 years later, there they were, fully Orthodox ...

But why am I comparing the Catholics with the Orientals? (One guess could be that there are only 2 Christian Churches that use IV Ezra: Romans and Ethiopians :-) ... but that's not it, however). The reason is that there seams to be an analogy in the way that they both connect to Eastern-Orthodoxy:

1) the Catholics say that their Pneumatology is fully-compatible with that of the Church-Fathers, -- i.e. "from the Father through the Son" and "from the Father and the Son" -- (and then add that the whole fuzz was actualy just some HUUUGE missunderstanding, ... especially for political reasons and cultural alienation, etc.) then the Orthodox ask them: "But aren't You then somewhat diminishing the Holy Ghost's personality with regard to the first two Persons in the Trinity?" -- to which the Catholics say: "Nooo! ... offcourse NOT! ... who gave You that idea?!" ... and then, the next thing You know is that they take out the Epiklesis from the Liturgy, because "the Words of the Institution is all You need, because the ancients allways thaught that the Word of God was the agent of His own Incarnation in the Virgin's whomb, and the word spirit was aplied to Christ in that particular Gospel-verse ('the Holy Spirit shall descend upon You') and it was regarded as aplying to the Holy Ghost only 3 centuries later, by the Constantine-sponsored synod". -- to which the Orthodox reply "Ooooo-kaaayyy ... have it Your way ..."

2)the Orientals say "Wel, You see, it's all just some BIIIG missunderstanding, because we had the same word for <person> and <nature>" (just like the Romans said "we don't have special words for <ekporeusis>") -- to which the Orhodox reply: "But practically speaking, You do believe that Christ had a human nature with which He died on the Cross, and a divine one, which is by its very nature immortal?" -- to which they reply: "Yeah, man, offcourse ... deep-deep down we're still brothers and all that ... " -- and then, the next thing You know is that they take out the pouring of the water in the wine, which should happen 2 times during the Liturgy ... and which, by the way, show Christ's true death on the Holy and Life-Giving Cross (because the separtion of plasma from hardened-blood is a very clear sign of death -- it was when the Gospels were written, ... and it still now).

IF You think that it's just words, please note that Origen, FOR EXAMPLE, (who was a heretic, I know, but in this example he's fully Orthodox), was speaking with a priest who said "there are two Gods" -- but he didn't went "mad", but instead simply asked the priest (to find out IF he was indeed ill in dogma, OR was just at a loss of words in describing the mistery of our wonderfull God) ... and when he found out he was just using a defectuous expression (i.e., he wasn't denying the Unity of the Godhead), he mildly corrected him and said a few words of advice as to how we should be more carefull with our speech, so as not to be "stambling-stones" or living room for confusion.

THE POINT IS if it would have been all just a cultural/linguistic problem, then we probably wouldn't have today Miaphysitism, or Roman-Catholicism.

-- in the end I just hope that this is not insulting to anyone ... I think the way in which I expounded my ideas clearly show that --

Adding links for new saint articles on their commemoration date?

I was just looking at the saints for today, June 3, and I noticed that Kevin of Glendalough was one of them. I think his article was just added a week or so ago, and there's not a link to this article off the main page saint commemorations for today. Solutions? Gabriela 09:50, June 3, 2006 (CDT)

Hi Gabriela, Please do go ahead and add him -- Just click on the date "June 3" to find the right page. Thanks, — FrJohn (talk)